Grandstanding only! Reduce the EPA to 100 folk; one 'principal' for\from each state plus one lovely secretary\typist\go-for\heavy-lifter. The job? Try to keep state governments from stepping on each other while finding something\anything that actually works!!

Now children, what you MUST understand from this bit of The Climate Story is that the best way to get a secure career is to accept government money to stay quiet in public, then retire and spill the beans.

The key judgement you have to make, if you want to pretend to be honourable, is what will be the next big science fraud. They're being trialled now: consciousness going to Space on death looks a winner because it is impossible to prove incorrect. It will probably replace formal religion because it is the same argument but using different wording.

The only difficult bit is what will replace Hell in this new Theology.

Phil, I do admire your predictability, but not much else.Now that Trump's in charge, I can predict a lot of other whistleblowers coming out.And a Trump enema for the "greens".Can hear the howls of anguish already :-)

Feb 6, 2017 at 5:44 PM | Unregistered CommenterAlecM(Now children, what you MUST understand from this bit of The Climate Story is that the best way to get a secure career is to accept government money to stay quiet in public, then retire and spill the beans.)

"The key judgement you have to make, if you want to pretend to be honourable, is what will be the next big science fraud. They're being trialled now: consciousness going to Space on death looks a winner because it is impossible to prove incorrect. It will probably replace formal religion because it is the same argument but using different wording. The only difficult bit is what will replace Hell in this new Theology."

But, but, but! That is for Earthlings. Consider what Seagulls do!!. Each Earthling has Bulls-eye on head. Fly over close and poop! Such is so refreshing for a Seagull that. Seagull wishes to go off some where and mess around with 'her', for many more Seagulls.

The Guardian has managed to rubbish David Rose's article without mentioning that a senior NOAA scientist, responsible for introducing data quality procedures, became a whistle blower and described all the ways in which Karl fiddled the "pause busting paper" in time to have influence at the Paris conference.

Clearly the Guardian believes that their readers will never ever read the MoS, which to be fair, is a cast iron bet. However, they are obviously worried that a whiff of NOAA misdeeds might possibly reach their readers. They have cast Rose as a climate villain with a track record who obviously made up the whole thing, aided by "someone who worked at NOAA", so the Guardian supporting true believers can sleep easy in their globally warmed beds tonight.

To repeat what I posted on JC’s blog, to no response, but – hey – that’s mixing with the big boys, I suppose:

"Questions to raise: how is ship’s data obtained? How is the buoy data obtained? Assuming the ship data is from manual reading of liquid-in-glass thermometers, are these thermometers suitably calibrated, scientific thermometers, and where are these thermometers located? Assuming the buoy data is from automatic electronic thermometers, how accurate are these thermometers, and how is the continuing accuracy of these thermometers monitored?Questions I have raised before, and had very little response to; will I get some answers, now?"

NO! you insist on some positive evidence of international FRAUD? What meaning does some perhaps technical detail have within evidence obvious colossal FRAUD? Bend way over and kiss your young a*s goodbye!

I have an old discussion thread about corrections to SST (sea temperatures) and John Kennedy from the Met Office added some comments. The basic gist is that some assumptions are made about measurements with buckets and after you go through the process you come up with a temperature estimate. An estimate that is of course predicated on the assumptions.

No problem with this as that is a typical science paper. However it is not of the standard to be used as a so-called National Standard as in reality the uncertainties are much larger (as demonstrated for general thermometers by a Dr Pat Frank last year as well as most engineers working at measuring temperatures even under controlled conditions). This is the issue. There is no understanding of what is needed in terms of calibration, characterisation and verification of measurement processes if small uncertainty is required.

I fully expect NOAA to come out saying these are scientific papers and should be used with caveats. But as this the best "science" we have it should be used anyway. A solipsistic fantasy.

Ship data comes from one of two places, liquid in glass, in a rubber bucket (tube actually) or a simple gauge mounted on the main engine room sea water inlet.

Met office supplied LIG thermometer can be read to within 0.5 degree C. Here is a good example of what is available today:https://www.coleparmer.co.uk/i/h-b-instrument-b60202-0000-easy-read-certified-glass-thermometer-10-70c-partial-300-mm/0800847

Note it is marked in half degrees, and accurate to +/- 0.5 degrees, traceable to NIST.

The accuracy figures come from a calibration lab. You can imagine what it is like at sea, using the rubber bucket in a gale etc.

The engine room water inlet can be fitted with a thermowell such as:https://www.coleparmer.co.uk/i/digi-sense-industrial-rtd-probe-12-length-3-4-thread/9382047

This holds a PTD such as:https://www.coleparmer.co.uk/i/digi-sense-ind-comp-rtd-probe-1-5-l-spd-lugs-188-dia-4ft-ss-braid-cable/9382200#eb-item-specification

Mr Janoscka: thank you for the implication that I am flexible enough to do what you suggest, and thank you for thinking that my donkey is still young. However… where do I ask for evidence of international fraud (or even FRAUD)? My questions, so I thought, should be quite simple to answer, and could provide some interesting insights; why do they merit such a response from you?

Thank you, Mr Richards. Using engine room inlets is NOT a measurement of sea surface temperatures – for a start, the thermometers are not usually what one might consider scientific; most are just accurate enough for believable measurements (who cares if it’s only to +/-1°C). Also, some inlets could be up to 20 metres below the surface; I have been assured that it is the first half metre or so of the sea surface that has any effect on the weather. While the readings obtained from buckets could also be suspect, at least they are of the surface, more or less; it is questionable, as the bucket is bouncing around in the wash (NOT the wake, as that has already been stirred up), which could arguably not be strictly considered surface water. I have no need to imagine what it is like taking readings in a gale, at sea; I have done it. The thermometers used were issued by the Met Office, with a declared accuracy of 0.2°C, and were easily readable to within 0.1°C – a figure that the Met Office expected.

Almost 40 years ago I served on several 'Weather Ships' which were tasked with taking a pretty comprehensive set of observations, including sea temperature, every six hours and encoding them for transmission back to the UK Met Office. The data was junk because the obs had to be fitted in around the real business of the ship and no-one had the patience to record and properly encode it. I always felt a bit guilty about that and years later mentioned this to a Met Office employee I met at a party. His response was "Don't worry about it, the data was so poor we completely ignored it". If this data, which was largely guessed or made up was unfit for weather forecasting, I doubt any statistical treatment can make it meaningful for any other purpose.

I have an old discussion thread about corrections to SST (sea temperatures) and John Kennedy from the Met Office added some comments. The basic gist is that some assumptions are made about measurements with buckets and after you go through the process you come up with a temperature estimate. An estimate that is of course predicated on the assumptions.

No problem with ths as that is a typical science paper. However it is not of the standard to be used as a so-called "National Standard as in reality the uncertainties are much larger (as demonstrated for general thermometers by a Dr Pat Frank last year as well as most engineers working at measuring temperatures even under controlled conditions). This is the issue. There is no understanding of what is needed in terms of calibration, characterization and verification of measurement processes if small uncertainty is required."

Agree! Just what the hell is 'temperature 'anyhow'?? Some almost linear differential expansion coefficient between different types of matter? Or now some fourth root proportional to the absolute maximum broadband 'radiance' of some imagined surface, that can never be measured! What can such possibly mean; especially some statistical average of the sensible heat contained in variable masses somewhere or another?

"I fully expect NOAA to come out saying these are scientific papers and should be used with caveats. But as this the best "science" we have it should be used anyway. A solipsistic fantasy."

Indeed! We have no knowledge, so the best; is some fantasy from floaters and sinkers in the terlit!!!

vvussell, you may genuinely believe that, but not many trust your judgement. The President of the USA may want to have all these allegations investigated, can his investigators trust your opinions, if they come to call?

The purpose of monitoring the seawater intake temperature, was to aid the Ship's Engineers in monitoring the performance of the engine.

A Captain might use this information on an Atlantic crossing to steer further south into warmer water, to avoid icebergs.

Measuring and recording to within 1-2 degrees of accuracy was more than adequate, until any change was actually noticed. Calibration was not a significant issue either.

A ship will have engines to drive propellers. There may be many other engines on board, running generators, hydraulics, emergency generators etc etc. They may all have separate cooling water intakes at different depths below sealevel. Even before the bow of a ship creates a bow wave, water disturbance is occurring. Naval architects seek to minimise turbulence as that wastes energy, but the turbulent wake of a ship is more to do with the hull shape than the thrust of the spinning propellers. Turbulence will vary with speed.

With so many variables, and so much scope for subsequent adjustments, I do not understand how sea temperatures can be used for Climatologists

I have never crossed an ocean in any form of boat, but monitoring the engine temperature whilst motoring at sea aboard sailing yachts (and other vessels) is something I am used to. Sudden rises, and alarms going off, are due to lack of flow, NOT a rise in sea temperature.

I'm appreciate Dr. Bates speaking out.But I wonder if his waiting for the safety of retirement speaks to the part of the fundamental corruption of 'government' science.Playing along is an understandable path to success and survival.So I find myself haunting the deniosphere seeking comfort among other minds that never learned to play well with others.

Bates designed an overly complicated set of procedures for climate data archiving.

He got upper management at NOAA to sign on because the charts looked pretty.

There were huge delays in implementation because of software problems and more.

The process was a huge time sink.

But it had the virtue of making Bates the Gatekeeper.

Others were not happy with this.

They had science they wanted to publish so they found a way around Gatekeeper Bates.

Gatekeeper Bates went crying to Lamar Smith.

Trump becomes president

And here we are- it turns out Bates beef with Karl was personal

. Scott Johnson at Ars Technica, says li writes that:

There may also be something beyond simple “engineers vs. scientists” tension behind Bates’ decision to go public with his allegations. Two former NOAA staffers confirmed to Ars that Tom Karl essentially demoted John Bates in 2012, when Karl was Director of NOAA’s National Centers for Environmental Information.

Bates designed an overly complicated set of procedures for climate data archiving.

Compared to what? Losing the data?

He got upper management at NOAA to sign on because the charts looked pretty.

Clarity is not a failing.

There were huge delays in implementation because of software problems and more.

That is quite believable. It is clear that Karl et al had problems with the use of basic software. They lost the data, after all.

The process was a huge time sink.

Compared to having to repeat the whole process to get the data back? This is basically a concession that Karl et al rushed the project for an arbitrary timeline.

Two former NOAA staffers confirmed to Ars that Tom Karl essentially demoted John Bates in 2012, when Karl was Director of NOAA’s National Centers for Environmental Information.

In the light of the ensuing scandal about adjusting the buoy data to match the ship data… this is actually a compliment to Bates. Not being part of the omerta may seem like a family spat (personal) but may also be a sign of integrity.

Feb 6, 2017 at 8:25 PM | Russell, That self-serving, bottom-covering exercise has been laughed at before.I rebutted it on WUWT here.

I also rebutted it on the Guardian but they censored my comments. Presumably because they knew my points could not be answered in debate. You can’t defend that rubbish either. Go on, try and counter my points.

I'm increasingly in awe of the courtesy and restraint shown by regular commenters towards the little band of alarmist mouthpieces who keep posting what is now clearly the most abject nonsense. I know civility towards other viewpoints is a hallmark of BH but as time passes I find I just get angrier and angrier with them for their bone-headed obstinacy and intellectual dishonesty.

If they want a negotiated peace, the time to start is now, otherwise the CAGW war will have to be concluded by their unconditional surrender, which they will find far more painful.